24RWP03_sol_0008.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to answ er potential offeror's question and to extend the solicitation date.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 9

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 12-Aug-2024

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street , County, State and Zip Code) X N0016424RWP03

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Apr-2024

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

12-Aug-2024

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

S. ECKERLE (812-854-6538)

BLDG 121

300 HWY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

N00164 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0016424RWP03

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 13-Aug-2024 04:00 PM to 12-Sep-2024 04:00 PM.

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been modified:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question 1: The subject of the Solicitation are two different Part numbers. Is this correct?

Answer 1: Yes, the MK-82 Direct Current Motor (P/N 2907650) and the AN/SPS-49 Direct Current Motor (P/N 914194).

Question 2: For the item SPS-49 – how many units does the Government commit to minimum each year to overhaul (levels of overhaul depend on the damage, so undefined, of course)?

Answer 2: The Government does not commit to a minimum number of overhauls for each year of the contract, but the Government does commit to an overall contract minimum. See page 16 of the Solicitation for details.

Question 3: For the item MK-82 – how many units does the Government commit to minimum each year to overhaul (levels of overhaul depend on the damage, so undefined, of course)?

Answer 3: The Government does not commit to a minimum number of overhauls for each year of the contract, but the Government does commit to an overall contract minimum. See page 16 of the Solicitation for details.

Question 4: For the item SPS-49 there is FA for NEW. Does this mean the Government solicits vendor to design and deliver new product that is Fit Form and Function replacement? OR does the Government ask potential offerors to build New Unit to print where the Government provides every necessary drawing?

Answer 4: New unit to print, with the Government providing the necessary drawings, Attachments 10 through 59 are the drawings for every piece on the SPS-49 Motor.

Question 5: In either case, what is the minimum quantity commitment in the new build product?

Answer 5: If First Article new manufacture is applicable to the SPS-49 DC Motor (CLIN 0019), the contract minimum is one (1). There is no contract minimum for new builds unless First Article new manufacture is applicable. Please see page 16 of the Solicitation for the contract minimums.

Question 6: For the item MK-82 there is FA for NEW. Does this mean the Government solicits vendor to design and deliver new product that is Fit Form and Function replacement? OR does the Government ask potential offerors to build New Unit to print where the Government provides every necessary drawing?

Answer 6: The new manufacture for MK-82 Motor shall meet the drawings specifications provided. The applicable drawings/specifications for the MK-82 are Attachments 05, 06, 08, and 09.

Question 7: In either case, what is the minimum quantity commitment in the new build product?

Answer 7: If First Article new manufacture is applicable to the MK-82 DC Motor (CLIN 0009), the contract minimum is one (1). There is no contract minimum for new builds unless First Article new manufacture is applicable. Please see page 16 of the Solicitation for the contract minimums.

Question 8: On page 103 of the solicitation is a request for a sample one-year delivery/production schedule where quantities are listed for the CLIN’s/ITEM’s regarding mostly Overhaul with one exception: CLIN 10 for Quantity 10. Can the government provide estimated quantities of New Manufacture ITEMs for years 1 through 5 for both the MK-82 Director DC Motor (P/N 2907650) and the AN/SPS-49 Elevation Drive DC Motor (P/N 914104)?

Answer 8: CLIN 0010 - MK-82 Director DC Motor (P/N 2907650) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

QTY 10 3 3 2 0

CLIN 0020 – AN/SPS-49 Elevation Drive DC Motor (P/N 914104)

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

QTY 10 1 1 1 1

Please note: The above quantities are ESTIMATES ONLY.

Question 9: In the first 13 pages of the solicitation CLIN’s/ITEM’s 10 and 20 have UNDEFINED (0) quantities. Can the government provide quantity estimates such as how many new articles will need to be produced after the First Article(s) New Manufacture/Test and Acceptance? Estimates of NLT or NTE will suffice. The first article(s) production and testing are completely understandable; however manufacturing/production lines are very intensive/expensive to set up and/or tear down for low or UNDEFINED (0) quantities. As well, B&P decisions are difficult to get commitment on when a solicitation doesn’t specifically provide justifiable production or overhaul quantities. It is even harder to quote a realistic price to win. Can the government provide New Manufacture quantities for CLIN’s/ITEM’s 10 and 20?

Answer 9: See Question 8 Answer

Question 10: On page 16 the government states, “Minimum quantity and Contract Value” + “Maximum Quantity and Contract Value” citing a “table” below that first paragraph. Can the government explain what this table represents more definitively as there are no Contract Values listed or Maximum Quantities listed? Does this table suggest the value of this contract is limited to the Minimum Quantities listed (i.e., 3 repairs and 1 new production unit of MK-82 and 1 repair and 1 new production unit of the SPS-49)? It would be better understood if in an actual table!

Answer 10: This is an Indefinite-Delivery-Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract and therefore, quantities are unknown. The Table on Page 16 reflects the minimum quantities the Government will purchase. The value of the contract is NOT limited to the minimum quantities listed in the table.

Question 11: CLINS related to outyear firm fixed pricing for overhaul and repair, prior to execution of a qualification represents significant challenges to industry. Will Government accept an estimate in the FFP outyears and an FFP for the qualification / FAI portion for overhaul and repair?

Answer 11: No, the Government will not accept an estimate for outyear pricing. CLINs 0021 and 0022 are Supplemental Repair CLINs and these two (2) CLINs will be negotiated on a case by case basis at the time of repair. The contractor will complete a FFP proposal to include supporting rationale for the requested work. The offeror shall propose a FFP for each of the five

(5) years for the other CLINs and this will establish the pricing on these CLINs for all five (5) CLINs.

Question 12: CLINS related to outyear pricing indicate there is intent to issue to the awardee workload during the 5-year Period of Performance (PoP). However, there is no commitment from the Government to guarantee post qualification and FAI acceptance the workload will go to the awardee. What assurances will the Government provide that all future workload for any AN/SPS-49 or Mk-82 will exclusively be sources to the awardee and not issued to a Government Depot / other contractor for overhaul and repair?

Answer 12: The First Article is on the Solicitation to allow contractors who have not done this work before, the opportunity to show that they can do it. If the contractor is successful then the Government will award regular production items to them as the requirement becomes available.

If the contractor fails First Article then they will be paid for the First Article, but no further orders will be awarded on that contract.

Question 13: RE: CONTRACT MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CONTRACT VALUE. The minimum quantities of 1 each for overhaul and repair are an insufficient commitment to create a long-term partnership over a 5-year period. Will the Government provide a minimum order quantity (MOQ) guaranteed to awardee as part of the award based on backlog and / or historical failure rates to forecast future demand to allow responders to assess return on investment for qualification on overhaul and repair of both motors?

Answer 13: The guaranteed minimum is what the Government has funds for at the time of award. Although the Government cannot guarantee anything beyond the minimum, the Government intends to award orders as the requirement comes in.

Question 14: CLIN 0023 dictates unlimited rights to all Data/Tech Data generated under this effort. This requirement, coupled with a lack of commitment in sourcing repair and overhaul workload with firm quantities or MOQ presents significant risk that the Government could insource all work at a Government Depot. Does the Government intend to insource the workload if there is an award made for overhaul and repair qualification?

Answer 14: No, the Government does not intend to insource the workload. The Government is not asking for proprietary data. Technical data of subcomponents not defined by Government Furnished Information (GFI) are not owned by the Government and will be proprietary to the developer of that technical data.

NOTE: The verbiage on CLIN 0023 regarding unlimited rights has been deleted and DFARS 252.227-7013 has also been deleted from Section I.

Question 15: Section 3.1 of the SOW. Contractor is required to furnish all equipment/labor/parts, etc. Will the contractor have access to any and all tech data pertaining to production equipment / tooling owned by the USG? IOW, will the contractor be required to erect supporting infrastructure and tooling from scratch, or does the USG already have established resources for the contractor to utilize and/or replicate?

Answer 15: There is no Government owned tooling or equipment tied to this effort. The contractor will be required to develop tooling to execute the workload.

Question 16: Section 3.1.6 of the SOW. “The Contractor shall maintain a configuration control program that meets the requirements of EIA649-1 Configuration Management Requirement for Defense contracts.” If the contractor is ISO9001 and AS9100 certified, shouldn’t those QMS standards alone be sufficient enough to meet this requirement? Under such standards, contractors in the repair and manufacturing space are required to maintain stringent product and workflow documentation for many years, ensuring quality delivery on target with requirements, along with proper pedigree. These QMS systems are essentially very robust configuration control mechanisms.

Answer 16: EIA649-1 governs configuration management of GFP/GFI. ISO9001 and AS9100 certifications provide equivalent coverage of the EIA649-1 requirements and can be used as a substitute.

Question 17: Section 3.1.7 of the SOW. Here, and in other places throughout the solicitation document, there is an ECP review process involving the USG that is unbounded on the USG side. It is very challenging to plan a program with open ended customer work cycles that have no defined timeframe parameters. Can the USG revise this solicitation to include definitive timeframes which the USG shall make their best effort to meet regarding responding to the contractor where noted and/or closing their part of work cycles?

Answer 17: The Government cannot provide definitive timeframes to review and accept the ECP. The time required to review and accept ECPs varies based on the magnitude of the ECP.

Question 18: Section 3.2.2.2 of the SOW. References USG witnessing FAT. What specific involvement is intended by the USG here? Level of effort on the contractor side is rather open ended regarding supporting USG personnel witnessing FAT. What will they specifically do – just watch? How many people? How long will they require support within the contractor’s location? What is the specific needed level of support from the contractor in hosting USG personnel in the witnessing of FAT?

Answer 18: Government witness (minimum two persons) to verify testing results. No involvement other than witness of testing and reviewing results onsite.

Question 19: Section 3.2.3.4. of the SOW. This requirement mentions another unbounded USG work cycle (i.e. approving an evaluation report with no definitive timeframe). Can the USG revise this solicitation to include definitive timeframes which the USG shall make their best effort to meet regarding responding to the contractor where noted and/or closing their part of work cycles?

Answer 19: The Government cannot provide definitive timeframes for issuing a modification to the delivery order to proceed with the repairs.

Question 20: Section 3.2.6.1.6. of the SOW. Recurring theme in this requirement regarding the USG witnessing FAT in an unbounded manner (this is throughout the document in other places and recommend all similar occurrences be addressed accordingly). What specific involvement is intended by the USG here? Level of effort on the contractor side is rather open ended regarding supporting USG personnel witnessing FAT. What will they specifically do – just watch? How many people? How long will they require support within the contractor’s location? What is the specific needed level of support from the contractor in hosting USG personnel in the witnessing of FAT?

Answer 20: Government witness (minimum two persons) to verify testing results. No involvement other than witness of testing and reviewing results onsite.

Question 21: Section C-244-H002 of the solicitation document. Why is there a mention of fee rate caps in this requirement? What does the USG require for this contract in terms of cost and pricing data, and what is the intent regarding fee regulation?

Answer 21: C-244-H002 is not applicable to this requirement and was put in by mistake.

Question 22: C-246-H002 GOVERNMENT USE OF CONTRACTOR’S INSPECTION EQUIPMENT (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018). “The contractor's gages, measuring, and testing devices shall be made available to the Government when required to determine contractor conformance with contract requirements. If conditions warrant, the contractor’s personnel shall be made available for operation of such devices and for verification of their accuracy and condition.” Can this requirement be revised to include specific boundaries around how – and for how long – the USG plans to remove and utilize the contractor’s tooling and testing devices, presumptively taking such assets out of the contractor’s location where they are supporting program work activities? The concern is that when the USG does this, and certainly if in an unbounded fashion, doing such can greatly stall program progress and create negative cost and schedule impacts for the contractor.

Answer 22: The purpose of this clause is to allow the Government to be able to use the contractor’s equipment if the Government is at the Contractor facility. The Government doesn’t intend to remove the contractor’s tooling and equipment from their facility.

Question 23: Section F - Deliveries or Performance. Delivery expectations are all noted as “TBD.” Why? What are the USG’s delivery schedule requirements (or at least estimated needs) on this effort? This is critical to understand as a baseline for program planning purposes and to enable overall success.

Answer 23: The Government wants the contractor to propose the delivery schedule for these items.

Question 24: Section I - Contract Clauses CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

There is a litany of clauses referenced here – for what purpose? Does the USG expect the contractor to be compliant with all of these (only) referenced clauses? Why are they referenced?

Answer 24: Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) we are required to include these specific clauses by reference. The web address for the FAR is included within this Solicitation.

Question 25: Original Question 8: On page 103 of the solicitation is a request for a sample one-year delivery/production schedule where quantities are listed for the CLIN’s/ITEM’s regarding mostly Overhaul with one exception: CLIN 10 for Quantity 10. Can the government provide estimated quantities of New Manufacture ITEMs for years 1 through 5 for both the MK-82 Director DC Motor (P/N 2907650) and the AN/SPS-49 Elevation Drive DC Motor (P/N 914104)?

Governments Answer 8 to Question 8:

CLIN 0010 - MK-82 Director DC Motor (P/N 2907650) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

QTY 10 3 3 2 0

CLIN 0020 – AN/SPS-49 Elevation Drive DC Motor (P/N 914104) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

QTY 10 1 1 1 1

Please note: The above quantities are ESTIMATES ONLY.

Response to governments answer to Question 8: the large font highlighted in YELLOW leads us back to the initial question with the following justification for our management’s decision matrix re; is their sufficient ROI in responding and potentially being awarded the contract. It was wrong to request “estimated” quantities. The question should have requested guaranteed quantities.

Answer 25: The Government cannot guarantee quantities other than the guaranteed minimum.

The Government does a need beyond the guaranteed minimum; however, it is undefined.

Question 26: Original Question 9: In the first 13 pages of the solicitation CLIN’s/ITEM’s 10 and 20 have UNDEFINED (0) quantities. Can the government provide quantity estimates such as how many new articles will need to be produced after the First Article(s) New Manufacture/Test and Acceptance? Estimates of NLT or NTE will suffice. The first article(s) production and testing are completely understandable; however, manufacturing/production lines are very intensive/expensive to set up and/or tear down for low or UNDEFINED (0) quantities. As well, B&P decisions are difficult to get commitment on when a solicitation doesn’t specifically provide justifiable production or overhaul quantities. It is even harder to quote a realistic price to win. Can the government provide New Manufacture quantities for CLIN’s/ITEM’s 10 and 20?

Governments Answer to Question 9: See Question 8 Answer.

Response to governments answer to Question 9: We requesting guaranteed quantities within the 5-year IDIQ to use internally for deciding if the ROI is justified by the expense to respond and potential execution of this contract.

Answer 26: The Government cannot guarantee quantities other than the guaranteed minimum.

The Government does a need beyond the guaranteed minimum; however, it is undefined.

Question 27: Original Question 10: On page 16 the government states, “Minimum quantity and Contract Value” + “Maximum Quantity and Contract Value” citing a “table” below that first paragraph. Can the government explain what this table represents more definitively as there are no Contract Values listed or Maximum Quantities listed? Does this table suggest the value of this contract is limited to the Minimum Quantities listed (i.e., 3 repairs and 1 new production unit of MK-82 and 1 repair and 1 new production unit of the SPS-49)? It would be better understood if in an actual table!

Governments Answer to Question 10: This is an Indefinite-Delivery-Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract and therefore, quantities are unknown. The Table on Page 16 reflects the minimum quantities the Government will purchase. The value of the contract is NOT limited to the minimum quantities listed in the table.

Response to the government’s response to Question 10. Question 10 was intended to request the government eliminate ambiguity re; provide guaranteed solicitation quantities the vendor can rely on to justify the expense of a bid response, setting up/planning a production line and aligning guaranteed resources if awarded a contract (i.e., ROI). It was not meant to request the definition of an IDIQ.

Answer 27: The Government cannot guarantee quantities other than the guaranteed minimum.

The Government does a need beyond the guaranteed minimum; however, it is undefined.

Question 28: In Attachment 07 (SE110-A2-MMD-010 OVERHAUL AND REPAIR MANUAL FOR ANTENNA AS-3263/SPS-49(V) table of contents shows 22 chapters and appendix A-G but stops at chapter 13. The below items are referenced, but not available as Appendix is missing.

1. Elevation drive test fixture G318795 Appendix B Figure B-9

2. Elevation drive test station G338511 Appendix B Figure B-10 (controller)

Can the Government provide?

Answer 28: See new Attachment 63 Question 29: Does the Government require both CLIN 001 and CLIN 009 to be quoted for a compliant bid:

Answer 29: While the Government intends to award one contract without discussions per FAR 52.215-1, there may be a possibility for award of more than one contract. Therefore, a potential offeror could propose on CLIN 001 or CLIN 009 or both.

Question 30: Can the Government provide the testing parameters for the motors (i.e. torque, balk hp, etc.)

Answer 30: For SPS-49 DC Motors (914104), the testing requirements can be found within SE110-A2-MMD-010, Chapter 9, Section 6. For MK-82 DC Motors (2907650), the testing requiremenets can be found within WS10319.

Question 31: We have the list of parts for the SPS-49 and understand a parts kit will be provided after award for the Mk-82. However, to generate an accurate FFP cost proposal it is paramount to have a parts list for the Mk-82 like that provided for the SPS-49. I.E., Mk-82 Motor Standard Overhaul Kit Parts List. Unless we missed it in the attachments that list is non-existent.

Answer 31: There is no parts list for the MK-82 Motor.

Question 32: Does the Government have a spare motor for the MK-82 DC (P/N 2907650) that could be sent to us for evaluation?

Answer 32: Unfortunately, the Government is not able to send a spare motor.

Question 33: Is the attachment 2907650 Rev AC for the MK-82 DC (P/N 2907650) unit?

Answer 33: Yes, however, this attachment was replaced with 2907650 AD in amendment 0007.

(End of Summary of Changes)